WhatTheFrog
Active Member
That, and we finished 12-1 while they finished 11-2.
We are the biggest win in their entire football history, and they couldn't even capitalize on it or finish ahead of us at the end of the day. Too cute.
Was 2014 CFP Snub Pivotal Long Term?
- Thread starter Hoosierfrog
- Start date
We are the biggest win in their entire football history, and they couldn't even capitalize on it or finish ahead of us at the end of the day. Too cute.
Paint It Purple
Active Member
Just one quibble with your headline. 2014 wasn’t a “Snub” as much as it was a “Get Out”. “You don’t belong here.” “Members Only”.
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
Alabama has two losses this season. They're done. "Go through their pockets and look for loose change..." Utah has played a good season, and I'm rather pleased they are being mentioned. I also know, through mightily disappointing experience, it ain't over yet.
Clemson keeps going undefeated. Hard to knock them out when they have that "-0" no matter who they are. Certainly worked for putrid Fla. St. in '14...
OU had two losses that season. (See above)
Michigan State was relentlessly pimped that season, and they managed to beat tOSU in Columbus late in the season. Then they managed to beat previously undefeated Iowa in the B1G Championship game.
Realtorfrog
Full Member
Yes on a national recruiting level but no on a regional level. As far as non TCU fan perception absolutely.... not a doubt in my mind we were the best team in the country that year!!
Blue bloods still control the committee and the conferences. I bet baylor gets screwed on several calls this weekend if the game is close at all.
Blue bloods still control the committee and the conferences. I bet baylor gets screwed on several calls this weekend if the game is close at all.
Zubaz
Member
Clemson has made the playoff with 1 loss twice, including their first CFP title run...
How could that be? I thought they only pimped the blue bloods?!?!?
Mean Purple
Active Member
uh ... michigan state is considered a blue blood.
Not really, unless you want to be really liberal with the definition.
I think what most fans of the rank of file teams want is a system that sets a higher bar for blue blood type programs. Kind of like an affirmative action type deal where the supposedly disenfranchised teams (the "non blue-bloods") can get inclusion to the party so to speak by meeting a lesser set of criteria, or be rewarded by having that one great year even though what some blue blood might have accomplished was just as impressive. That's the only thing I can conclude from some of the arguments being made. Heck, look at the title of this thread. I could easily make the argument that Ohio State (possibly the bluest blood of them all) has been "snubbed" by the CFP more than anyone, yet the thread starter seems to want to place some of the blame for our troubles on the CFP committee decision in 2014. And yet Ohio State seems to keep rolling and not really worried about the CFP does.
Good lord, we went 11-1 one year (didn't play in a CCG and by the traditional method of awarding conference championships didn't even win our conference), didn't make the playoffs, and you'd think it was the greatest injustice in the history of sports. It's also happened to Ohio State twice and will likely happen to another team this year.
Zubaz
Member
In what universe? Basketball maybe (maybe) but definitely not football. Unless you're literally saying any state school is a "blue blood"?
Sorry, this is a minor point, but this is 100% BS. This is a myth that needs to die.
By every single conference's standards before the advent of a conference title game, we won the conference, splitting the title with Baylor. That's how it has always been. Everyone wants to act like split conference titles aren't a real or valid thing, it's just plain wrong. Look at Ohio State's 2008 conference title, look at 2007 USC. For TCU, look at our 1999, 2000, and 2002 titles. This isn't new, it's how conference titles were was ALWAYS determined and to pretend like Baylor had any claim to anything beyond the Big 12's NY6 Auto-Bid is balderdash.
OK. i should have stated it differently. The winner of the head-to-head in the case of a tie has always gone on to represent that conference in whatever postseason matchup there is. I actually didn't have a problem if they had chosen TCU over Baylor but I've seen more than a few arguments concerning other situations where people on here were adamant that the winner of the head-to-head matchup should get the nod. See Penn State-Ohio State 2016, and hell, OSU even had a better overall record. Just pointing out the fact that people will completely ignore facts that don't fit their argument.
Casey T
Full Member
Can we all just agree that the waco refs robbed us in 2014 with their back to back, inconsistent PI call and then lack thereof? Or the terrible clock operator at the end of the first half who left a second on the clock for baylor to add a field goal? Even if we lost a game later that season after beating baylor, we would've had a top 10 win and not had to share the conference title. Might have still been left out but it would've been a stronger resume, and I think we would've gone undefeated to leave no doubt
Froginbedford
Full Member
Big 12 doesn't play defense....
Froginbedford
Full Member
*Liked for this....
AroundWorldFrog
Full Member
Disagree. We were on the cusp once and that matters. I’m not saying we will get the benefit of the doubt the next time but look at programs like Oregon. It took them a while to be considered one of the elite.
BearlyAFrog
Active Member
Any rational sports fan has to acknowledge that a "shared" title isn't really that shared if one of the teams directly beat the other. If a person is arguing from a conference bylaws perspective instead of pure "settle it on the field" logic then they are completely missing the point. Reminds me of a certain national title from the thirties...
As for who gets in the CFP, the arguments made for "whatever the committee feels like" are unfortunately pretty accurate. Sometimes it's strength of schedule, sometimes it's wins/losses, sometimes it's the ambiguous eye test. Urban Meyer is a jerk off, but he's right when he says that the committee shouldn't look at the meaningless games. Alabama beating up on Western Carolina doesn't help to inform the decision making process. If they're after ranked wins then it's OU, if they're after "good" losses then it's BU, if they're after game control then it's Utah. It's whatever they want.
After the games are over this weekend the best possible scenario for each of the three teams would be:
OU wins and ends its season with 3 ranked wins, 2 of them top ten, and 1 unranked loss.
Utah wins and ends its season with 1 ranked win, 0 of them top ten, and 1 ranked loss
BU wins and ends its season with 2 ranked wins, 1 of them top ten, and 1 top ten ranked loss
Baylor has the weakest strength of schedule but that may be over played by people. ALL three of the teams played a bunch of losers in non-con. Utah's BYU actually went 7-5 so there is the one team out of nine above .500
OU's opponents : 13-23
Utah's opponents: 15-21
BU's opponents : 10-28
WhiteHispanicFrog
Curmudgeon
You’re completely ignoring margin of victory. That figures coming from you. Like I said, people have a result they want and then work backward from there. “Ranked wins” shouldn’t really mean jack [ Finebaum ] because the #23 team counts as one and the #27 doesn’t, and there really is no material difference between #23 and #27.
BearlyAFrog
Active Member
Not ignoring margin of victory. To me "margin of victory", "game control", and "eye test" are all different ways of saying the same thing. It's how dominant one team was over another team.
I disagree though about ranked wins because without that there is no real way to distinguish between the "quality" of opponents. In theory the ranking reflects a team's abilities and season accomplishments. If we don't have rankings then we'd have to be relying on tradition and a program's brand, and none of us here agree with that. I'd be the first to agree that the rankings are screwed up a lot of times, but under the current system it's the best we've got.
SnoSki
Full Member
not sure I agree but I can sympathize. I do think they need to change the playoff selection process into something that’s consistent that programs can anticipate and prepare for. This weekly game of committees moving the goalposts is a farce.
